Why the insistence on linking abortion with the Holocaust?

[Tarpeian]

This reminds me of the Jewish Museum in Berlin, which has a room that visitors enter – it’s meant to convey the experience of the gas chamber, though on a very mild scale. It’s interesting to note that the ways in which various museums depict the cattle cars is always under scrutiny. In D.C., the cattle car is open and visitors walk through it (many of my college-level students are dismayed to see kids running through it), while at Yad Vashem, the car is outside and high out of reach. It’s on a railroad track that is simply sheered off at the cattle car’s end, which produces the effect of the car heading off into the abyss. It’s very striking.

Correct me if I’m wrong but the rail car in D.C. is new. I think it was added two years ago? But I’m not a 100% certain. In my observations the Richmond, Va. site appeals more to children. The D.C. museum site seems to appeal to young adults, and us old people.

Pax.
Tarpeian

 

[gracepoole]

No its not absurd at all. It’s the same philosophy. I can’t see how you can’t see why mothers aborting children is perhaps the worst thing that is happening at this moment. Don’t throw the “anti-Semite” word so loosely as though people hate Jews by seeing the similarity between the two. It’s no different from when homosexuals accuse others of homophobia. Can you read hearts?

For the record, abortion can be traced back to eugenics, which is something Hitler was doing. Also Jews weren’t the only victims of the Holocaust, so why the righteous indignation?

Let’s not be too quick to dismiss Chosen People’s concerns. CP’s “righteous indignation” is just that: righteous. There was only one “final solution” ordered during the Holocaust and it was against the Jews. I know I’ve said this before but it bears repeating: Yad Vashem (the Holocaust Martyrs’ and Heroes’ Remembrance Authority) uses the term “Holocaust” only to refer to Jewish victims of the Nazis. It does so, in part, because the Jews were the primary target of the Nazis’ genocidal actions, as demonstrated by the final solution of the Wannsee Conference, and because the other victim groups deserve to be remembered uniquely and individually – in other words, as one of Yad Vashem’s primary educators says, lumping the other victims in with Jewish victims does not permit them to be remembered for the reasons that they were murdered. There is good reason, then, to give credence to the notion that the Holocaust is a Jewish story even if it’s not exclusively Jewish.

There is good reason, too, for Jews to be protective of the victims. As I said earlier, they are “borrowed” and used for any number of unrelated purposes. Holocaust denial still exists, as well, which further explains a desire to remember it faithfully and honestly rather than muddying its memory. And of course, lest we forget, for many, many Jews living today, whole portions of their family trees have been wiped out. It hardly seems surprising that this becomes a very personal issue, then.

Abortion is an abomination. I’ve already said that I find it disturbed, unproductive, and harmful to rank tragedies – a loss of human life via genocide is abhorrent and need not be qualified by prizes for body count or victim ages. God will judge the perpetrators of all genocides – the manner in which He does so is not for us to claim.

 

[gracepoole]

Correct me if I’m wrong but the rail car in D.C. is new. I think it was added two years ago? But I’m not a 100% certain. In my observations the Richmond, Va. site appeals more to children. The D.C. museum site seems to appeal to young adults, and us old people.

Pax.
Tarpeian

Haha – well, I’m not a young adult anymore and I’m not sure I qualify as “old people,” but I do appreciate portions of it. You’re right about the Hall of Remembrance at the end. Yad Vashem has a similar Hall of Names and both are very moving. The cattle car was at the D.C. museum back in 1991 when this photo was taken, it seems (two years before its official opening): ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/exhibit/

I’ve got some friends at the Richmond museum – I look forward to seeing it someday! I’m not sure that you’ll get to D.C. in the next year or two, but its newest exhibit would make a trip worth it. The “Some Were Neighbors: Collaboration & Complicity In The Holocaust” exhibit promises to be extremely provocative.

 

[gracepoole]

Yes, many times from the year of its opening on. When I lived in the DC area, I would take friends and family down to see it and it was always a very moving experience.

Especially the shoes, that exhibit is a “three-hanky” for me, even when I know what I will be seeing ahead of time. Every single time it gets me.

I have a rosary bracelet that I now wear when I visit the museum. It gives me some comfort and as you say, you know what’s coming but the emotional wallop is still incredible.

 

[jeannetherese]

\ I know I’ve said this before but it bears repeating: Yad Vashem (the Holocaust Martyrs’ and Heroes’ Remembrance Authority) uses the term “Holocaust” only to refer to Jewish victims of the Nazis. There is good reason, then, to give credence to the notion that the Holocaust is a Jewish story even if it’s not exclusively Jewish.
There is good reason, too, for Jews to be protective of the victims. As I said earlier, they are “borrowed” and used for any number of unrelated purposes.

Vad Yahsem was brought into being by an act of the Israeli Parliament, the Knesset in 1953. It seems understandable that the Israeli Parliament would have a strong interest in emphasizing the Jewish victims of the holocaust while perhaps placing less emphasis upon the Gypsies, Poles, Catholics homosexuals, Trade Unionist, Socialists and Communist victims. While they may wish to give credence to the notion that the holocaust is a Jewish story, turning away from the millions of non-Jewish victims seems to leave the story incomplete. Why others, should agree to go along with this seems is unclear…

I’m still waiting for the examples of borrowing and using the dead. And for criteria which illustrate this and are applied across the board to the memorials themselves. The museum site I visited spoke to education on civil rights, and democracy which would be considered “secondary issues” under the last criteria offered.
It seems as if the main concern is who has the right to determine how these issues will be discussed. Why should the Knesset (and the organization beholden to it) be treated as voice of authority? Why should those living outside of the territory it governs accept this authority?
On the positive side, if nurturing democracy is considered an educational benefit and goal of the holocaust memorial, then our courteous, yet robust forum discussion is well aligned. And if, as quoted from the ushmm website below, critical thinking about the holocaust leads us to choose to reject silence as we recognize the oppression of others, including the unborn, then discussing the the tragedies together may be a sign that the memorials are increasing such sensitivity.

ushmm.org/education/foreducators/whyteach/

Study of the Holocaust assists students in developing an understanding of the roots and ramifications of prejudice, racism, and stereotyping in any society.

The Holocaust provides a context for exploring the dangers of remaining silent, apathetic, and indifferent in the face of the oppression of others.

Democratic institutions and values are not automatically sustained, but need to be appreciated, nurtured, and protected; democracy is fragile.

Silence and indifference to the suffering of others, or to the infringement of civil rights in any society can—however unintentionally—perpetuate the problems.

May God bless all who visit this thread. Amen.

 

[gracepoole]

Vad Yahsem was brought into being by an act of the Israeli Parliament, the Knesset in 1953. It seems understandable that the Israeli Parliament would have a strong interest in emphasizing the Jewish victims of the holocaust while perhaps placing less emphasis upon the Gypsies, Poles, Catholics homosexuals, Trade Unionist, Socialists and Communist victims. While they may wish to give credence to the notion that the holocaust is a Jewish story, turning away from the millions of non-Jewish victims seems to leave the story incomplete. Why others, should agree to go along with this seems is unclear…

So the Nazis crafted a plan to execute all the Jews of Europe (something that was not crafted for any of the other victim groups) but it’s not primarily a Jewish story? I noted earlier that Yad Vashem’s interest isn’t in “turning away from the millions of non-Jewish victims” or denying the other victims group their honor. It’s disingenuous to claim that Israel wants to *make *the Holocaust into a Jewish story.

I’m still waiting for the examples of borrowing and using the dead.

But you’re really not. Several examples of “using” the dead have been offered thus far in terms of topics like global warming, health care reform, race-related education… Not to mention the topic in the subject line of this thread.

And for criteria which illustrate this and are applied across the board to the memorials themselves. The museum site I visited spoke to education on civil rights, and democracy which would be considered “secondary issues” under the last criteria offered.

Yes! These are secondary issues. Again, some have more merit than others. I understand the desire to think of the Holocaust in terms of its “lessons.” But when we do so, we also run the risk of claiming that the Holocaust victims’ deaths were purposeful – that is, that they serve a purpose. And of course they weren’t purposeful.

It seems as if the main concern is who has the right to determine how these issues will be discussed. Why should the Knesset (and the organization beholden to it) be treated as voice of authority? Why should those living outside of the territory it governs accept this authority?

How about this? Israel has traditionally been home to the largest percentage of Holocaust survivors in the world. Why should we dismiss the views of those who witnessed the Holocaust’s horrors?

 

[jeannetherese]

Hi Gracepoole. I’m not sure how to set off quotes so I am using different colors to help us with our discussion. May God bless you. Amen.

So the Nazis crafted a plan to execute all the Jews of Europe (something that was not crafted for any of the other victim groups) but it’s not primarily a Jewish story? I noted earlier that Yad Vashem’s interest isn’t in “turning away from the millions of non-Jewish victims” or denying the other victims group their honor. It’s disingenuous to claim that Israel wants to *make *the Holocaust into a Jewish story.

Some will wish to emphasize one group in their telling of the holocaust, others may choose to emphasize other groups. Different scholars, different non-scholars will emphasize different issues. I am unsure why this should be considered problematical. Israel may see this as a Jewish story, some scholars may see this as a story about totalitarian ideologies, yet other scholars may see this as a story about economics, others may emphasize issues of morality, or look at the ways in which propaganda may be used to lable certain groups as disposable. Different individuals will have different viewpoints and areas of emphasis. The USHMM notes the complexity of the issue and is seems reasonable to think that those interested in the holocaust might also be interested in its complexity. To attempt to impose one lens upon society seems anti-democratic to me. Perhaps I am missing something?

But you’re really not. Several examples of “using” the dead have been offered thus far in terms of topics like global warming, health care reform, race-related education… Not to mention the topic in the subject line of this thread.

Actually those words " global warming, health care reform, race-related education: have been used twice now, but I was hoping for a link to a specific example. What specific case studies concern you? Have you links to these examples?
The education note on civil rights at the USHMM leads me to wonder if race relations reform migh be considered and “acceptable” secondary topic by that organization.

Yes! These are secondary issues. Again, some have more merit than others. I understand the desire to think of the Holocaust in terms of its “lessons.” But when we do so, we also run the risk of claiming that the Holocaust victims’ deaths were purposeful – that is, that they serve a purpose. And of course they weren’t purposeful.

The problem with this argument is that in a previous post, you suggested that secondary topics were problematical.
The secondary issues I noted were all on the USHMM website. They seem to think that secondary issues are acceptable. Thus my request for a new criteria for determining acceptable vs. unacceptable.

How about this? Israel has traditionally been home to the largest percentage of Holocaust survivors in the world. Why should we dismiss the views of those who witnessed the Holocaust’s horrors?

An analogous argument might suggest that as the majority of Nazis came from Germany, Germans should be able to determine how Nazis should be discussed.
It is hard to imagine all scholars wishing to consider any particular group as “the official authority” on the subject. Scholarship is so often contentious.
Please not that I am not advocating dismissing the views of any members of the groups who survived the holocaust. Nor am I arguing for dismissing the views of those who fought to stop the holocaust, or those who were born after the holocaust. May the sharing of different perspectives and the discussion that follows help us all to value each human life as unique and special to Our Lord. Amen.

 

[gracepoole]

Some will wish to emphasize one group in their telling of the holocaust, others may choose to emphasize other groups. Different scholars, different non-scholars will emphasize different issues. I am unsure why this should be considered problematical. Israel may see this as a Jewish story, some scholars may see this as a story about totalitarian ideologies, yet other scholars may see this as a story about economics, others may emphasize issues of morality, or look at the ways in which propaganda may be used to lable certain groups as disposable. Different individuals will have different viewpoints and areas of emphasis. The USHMM notes the complexity of the issue and is seems reasonable to think that those interested in the holocaust might also be interested in its complexity. To attempt to impose one lens upon society seems anti-democratic to me. Perhaps I am missing something?

You’ll have to explain why the final solution shouldn’t impact our view of the Holocaust as primarily Jewish in nature. Here’s what the USHMM says of the Holocaust: “The Holocaust was the systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of approximately six million Jews by the Nazi regime and its collaborators. During the era of the Holocaust, German authorities also targeted other groups because of their perceived “racial inferiority”: Roma (Gypsies), the disabled, and some of the Slavic peoples (Poles, Russians, and others). Other groups were persecuted on political, ideological, and behavioral grounds, among them Communists, Socialists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and homosexuals.”

I’m not clear on why the way in which a people and their destruction are remembered should be democratic.

Actually those words " global warming, health care reform, race-related education: have been used twice now, but I was hoping for a link to a specific example. What specific case studies concern you? Have you links to these examples?
The education note on civil rights at the USHMM leads me to wonder if race relations reform migh be considered and “acceptable” secondary topic by that organization.

I can suggest several books that explore these and many other examples in depth – the first I already suggested: The End of the Holocaust, by Alvin Rosenfeld. And also:

Using and Abusing the Holocaust, by Lawrence Langer
Holocaust Representation: Art within the Limits of History and Ethics, by Berel Lang
[The Abuse of Holocaust Memory: Distortions and Responses](The Abuse of Holocaust Memory), by Manfred Gerstenfeld

And then there’s this account of how and why the USHMM’s definition came into being.

Or this.

An analogous argument might suggest that as the majority of Nazis came from Germany, Germans should be able to determine how Nazis should be discussed.

You’re advocating to encourage the perpetrators to tell the story of the genocide they committed?

 

[jeannetherese]

I’m not clear on why the way in which a people and their destruction are remembered should be democratic.

To me, it seems awfully dangerous to accept an “authoritarian” determination of truth from a state sponsored organization. Perhaps I am too skeptical of state power. Democracy is messy and slow and oftentimes rambunctious, but I wonder if encouraging people to they think for themselves might not be the preferable option to top down authority?

Thank you for the reading recommendations. I read the blog piece and the speech by Mr. Reich but lacked time to get into the books. Both pieces advocated for a limited definition (Jewish specific) of holocaust as might be anticipated, given the thread topic, previous arguments and the choice of authors to present.
Mr Reich is Walter Reich, Yitzhak Rabin Memorial Professor of International Affairs, Ethics and Human Behavior at George Washington University (and has studied terrorism and Hamas and Rabbi Cooper is the Associate Dean of the Simon Weisenthal center. Reich acknowledged that in a democratic society there were bound to be varying approaches to both defining the term "holocaust"and discussing the subject; Mr. Cooper shared his concern over this fact. Each article was presented contestation over who gets to determine how the holocaust should be thought of and talked about.

Which of course, brings us back to the suggestion that the chief topic of debate in our thread is who gets to set the parameters of debate, who gets to define the terms, whether there is a particular way that history should be discussed, and who gets to make that determination. Do we accept a particular authoritarian source or accept that different sources will have different arguments and different forms of presentation, some of which may be quite disagreeable to us.?

You’re advocating to encourage the perpetrators to tell the story of the genocide they committed?

Not at all. I’m using an analogy in the hope that is will help to illustrate the problem with the argument that, as the greater percentage of a people had a particular experience, they should be able to determine how that experience is presented.
I wonder if it might not be better to encourage multiple voices and trust that, as People study the different arguments, they will be able to formulate their own conclusions. The argument that one particular group should be able to dictate a conversations seems so…authoritarian.
May God bless us all. Amen.

 

[chosen_people]

The compulsion and the necessity to link the Catholic stand on abortion to the murder of one in every two Jews in Europe is more than unclear. This incongruity is further enhanced given that certain Catholic positions on abortion are antithetical to Judaism. . The Holocaust analogy to abortion encourages the further erosion and belittlement of the unique horror of the Holocaust. The Holocaust was the culmination of two thousand years of religious, cultural and racial anti-Semitism. The Nazis were not the originators of the idea that the Jews were subhuman, that they were like animals fit only for slaughter. The Nazis did not invent making Jews wear a yellow badge identifying them as Jews, they did not invent the concept of Jew free areas, or mass expulsion of Jews, or mass murder of Jews or mass theft of their property, or the placement of Jews in ghettos, or blood purity rules, or book burnings of Jewish books, or the total ostracizing of Jews from society, from places of work, of learning, of social interaction, or the boycott of Jews and Jewish businesses, or the denial to Jews of basic civil and legal rights. They did not invent the “big lie”'such as the blood libel, the desecration of the Eucharist, the Jews poisoning of wells, the Jews causing the plague. They did not invent the idea of the Jew as a malignant and detrimental force to society. Others did that for them.

So we should not be surprised to discover that the Holocaust wasn’t the first time that one half of the Jewish population of Europe was massacred. That occurred during the Crusades and was carried out by people who had joined the Crusades. Admittedly, the connection of butchering Jewish men, women and children for the crime of being Jewish and abortion is still unclear. However given the passage of time this similar analogy does not come to diminish the horror of the Holocaust. So instead of talking about abortion and the Holocaust I suggest something along the lines that abortion is “like being a Jew in Europe at the time of the Crusades”.

 

[fix]

The term “Holocaust” literally refers to a sacrificial death by fire. And according to scholars and survivors like Elie Wiesel, there is only one Holocaust – it’s written with a capital “H” to indicate that it’s a proper noun and it refers to Nazi Germany’s genocide. Why, then, do people like Pat Robertson find it necessary to compare it to abortion? The claim that abortion is a genocide is different – it may or may not be. But it most definitely is not the Holocaust. This comparison strikes me as doing a disservice to the Holocaust’s victims as well as the millions murdered through abortion. Abortion is hideous enough that it need not be compared to another tragedy. And Robertson’s claim that abortion is “worse” than what happened in Nazi Germany is sick. They’re both immoral affronts to God – giving one atrocity a gold medal while giving another a silver, as though they’re competing in some sort of bizarre Olympics of Suffering, is really shameful.

“Robertson: US Abortion ‘Holocaust’ Worse than Nazi Germany, Will Lead to ‘Wrath of the Lord’”
rightwingwatch.org/content/robertson-us-abortion-holocaust-worse-nazi-germany-will-lead-wrath-lord

You think the dead babies agree with you?

 

[Usige]

This incongruity is further enhanced given that certain Catholic positions on abortion are antithetical to Judaism.

Just to make this clear since you don’t spell it out. The vast majority of Jewish people do not consider a fetus a human until birth. At best a fetus is a partial life but until birth it is more like a finger than a person made in the likeness and image of God. That is why something like 93% of US Jews are okay with abortion in all or most cases.

The link between the genocide of the Holocausts does not make sense because they do not see ripping a fetus apart as murder, it is simply removing an unwanted part of the body. As long as one declares a fetus is subhuman then killing millions of them isn’t even a form of genocide, more like cosmetic surgery. To declare otherwise would make them (like too many others in the world) complicit in turning their backs on the destruction of millions of God’s children.

 

[meltzerboy]

Just to make this clear since you don’t spell it out. The vast majority of Jewish people do not consider a fetus a human until birth. At best a fetus is a partial life but until birth it is more like a finger than a person made in the likeness and image of God. That is why something like 93% of US Jews are okay with abortion in all or most cases.

The link between the genocide of the Holocausts does not make sense because they do not see ripping a fetus apart as murder, it is simply removing an unwanted part of the body. As long as one declares a fetus is subhuman then killing millions of them isn’t even a form of genocide, more like cosmetic surgery. To declare otherwise would make them (like too many others in the world) complicit in turning their backs on the destruction of millions of God’s children.

This is NOT what Judaism believes about abortion. All abortion (abortion on demand) is definitely NOT okay according to the tenets of Judaism. When the mother’s life is in danger, then her life takes precedence over that of her unborn baby. In cases of rape and incest, there is a LENIENCY involved in terminating the pregnancy due to the psychological harm inflicted on the mother, as well as in cases of MAJOR genetic disorder in which the baby will most likely not live when born or live in severe pain. When there are two unborn children involved and both will most probably die unless the weaker is aborted, abortion of the weaker child is permitted. But even these latter instances, except for the sure threat to the mother’s life, are not agreed upon by all rabbis. Abortion is a very serious issue in Judaism, NEVER to be taken lightly, and this applies not only to Orthodox Judaism but to Conservative and Reform Judaism as well.

Those Jews who agree with women who have abortions for reasons other than those mentioned above are doing so on the basis of tolerance toward THEIR individual religious and moral beliefs but NOT on the basis of the religious and moral beliefs of Judaism.

 

[Usige]

This is NOT what Judaism believes about abortion. All abortion (abortion on demand) is definitely NOT okay according to the tenets of Judaism. When the mother’s life is in danger, then her life takes precedence over that of her unborn baby. In cases of rape and incest, there is a LENIENCY involved in terminating the pregnancy due to the psychological harm inflicted on the mother, as well as in cases of MAJOR genetic disorder in which the baby will most likely not live when born or live in severe pain. When there are two unborn children involved and both will most probably die unless the weaker is aborted, abortion of the weaker child is permitted. But even these latter instances, except for the sure threat to the mother’s life, are not agreed upon by all rabbis. Abortion is a very serious issue in Judaism, NEVER to be taken lightly, and this applies not only to Orthodox Judaism but to Conservative and Reform Judaism as well.

Those Jews who agree with women who have abortions for reasons other than those mentioned above are doing so on the basis of tolerance toward THEIR individual religious and moral beliefs but NOT on the basis of the religious and moral beliefs of Judaism.

My apologies, Metlzerboy and thank you for the correction. I was paraphrasing what I was told by a Jewish friend about why so many Jewish support (or don’t condemn) abortion on demand. He had provided links that basically broke it down as follows:

Conception to 40 days the fetus is nothing but a bag of fluid and no more human.
41 days to birth the fetus is a partial life, and a full life (i.e. the mother) has more right to life than the partial life.
At birth (head out of the womb) the child is a full life and his life is then inviolate.

With regard to abortion being considered murder, he pointed me to Exodus 21 that when a baby is killed in the womb the punishment is not for murder, but rather financial recompense for destruction of property. His point was that if it was fully human then the charge would be murder. He made the argument that murder is against a human and a fetus is not human. It would therefore follow that abortion is not genocide because genocide is mass murder. You cannot murder that which is not human.

Can you please then shed light on what part of the “Catholic position on abortion” is “antithetical to Judaism”? (I know it was another poster but I do appreciate your insight). Even if we discount abortions done as a form of self defense there are still a million plus murders committed every year directed at those that are “inconvenient”.

 

[meltzerboy]

My apologies, Metlzerboy and thank you for the correction. I was paraphrasing what I was told by a Jewish friend about why so many Jewish support (or don’t condemn) abortion on demand. He had provided links that basically broke it down as follows:

Conception to 40 days the fetus is nothing but a bag of fluid and no more human.
41 days to birth the fetus is a partial life, and a full life (i.e. the mother) has more right to life than the partial life.
At birth (head out of the womb) the child is a full life and his life is then inviolate.

With regard to abortion being considered murder, he pointed me to Exodus 21 that when a baby is killed in the womb the punishment is not for murder, but rather financial recompense for destruction of property. His point was that if it was fully human then the charge would be murder. He made the argument that murder is against a human and a fetus is not human. It would therefore follow that abortion is not genocide because genocide is mass murder. You cannot murder that which is not human.

Can you please then shed light on what part of the “Catholic position on abortion” is “antithetical to Judaism”? (I know it was another poster but I do appreciate your insight). Even if we discount abortions done as a form of self defense there are still a million plus murders committed every year directed at those that are “inconvenient”.

Even if, as your friend explained, Judaism does believe that the unborn child is not yet considered a full person, and not endowed with a soul until birth (as strongly implied in Genesis), one is still not entitled to terminate a pregnancy for any reason other than the life and health of the mother, as well as the other leniencies (not accepted by all) I referred to. Abortion on demand due to poverty, family planning, or sex selection are abhorrent to Judaism. I suppose the difference between the Jewish and the Catholic position on abortion is that there are virtually no exceptions according to the Church, even if the mother’s life is in imminent danger. Explicit killing of the unborn child is forbidden in all cases; only the unintentional death of the unborn child due to the medical treatment of the mother is permitted. Also, in the case of the mother’s life being in danger, Judaism requires abortion to save her life; it is not an option.

 

[Usige]

Even if, as your friend explained, Judaism does believe that the unborn child is not yet considered a full person, and not endowed with a soul until birth (as strongly implied in Genesis), one is still not entitled to terminate a pregnancy for any reason other than the life and health of the mother, as well as the other leniencies (not accepted by all) I referred to. Abortion on demand due to poverty, family planning, or sex selection are abhorrent to Judaism. I suppose the difference between the Jewish and the Catholic position on abortion is that there are virtually no exceptions according to the Church, even if the mother’s life is in imminent danger. Explicit killing of the unborn child is forbidden in all cases; only the unintentional death of the unborn child due to the medical treatment of the mother is permitted. Also, in the case of the mother’s life being in danger, Judaism requires abortion to save her life; it is not an option.

So would it be just to say that Jewish and Catholic teachings would both condemn abortion in 95%+ of cases in most Western societies (those that are not an imminent threat to the mother)?

I guess point blank, if a unborn child is not a full person does Judaic teaching considers taking their life murder? If not what is it considered?

I am not trying to derail the thread, but rather understand if Jewish law would even consider the explosion of unnecessary abortions as a form of genocide or murder on an unprecedented scale. This really gets back to why some might link the Holocaust to abortion (right or wrong). If Judaism does not see abortion as murder then it would help explain why many Jewish leaders would see them as not even distant parallels.

 

[meltzerboy]

So would it be just to say that Jewish and Catholic teachings would both condemn abortion in 95%+ of cases in most Western societies (those that are not an imminent threat to the mother)?

I guess point blank, if a unborn child is not a full person does Judaic teaching considers taking their life murder? If not what is it considered?

I am not trying to derail the thread, but rather understand if Jewish law would even consider the explosion of unnecessary abortions as a form of genocide or murder on an unprecedented scale. This really gets back to why some might link the Holocaust to abortion (right or wrong). If Judaism does not see abortion as murder then it would help explain why many Jewish leaders would see them as not even distant parallels.

Please key in “Is Abortion Murder? Bibleandjewishstudies.net,” in which Dr. Leila Bronner briefly discusses the differences between Jewish and Catholic views on abortion, based on different interpretations of Exodus 21:22-23 by the Church, which refers to the Septuagint Greek translation (or mistranslation according to Bronner) and the controversy between the Church Fathers with respect to the period of ensoulment at conception and how this view relates to baptism, with Tertullian and St.Gregory on one side of the issue and St. Augustine on another. The Orthodox Jewish view is also largely based on the Talmud, which many Conservative and especially Reform Jews do not abide by as inspired and handed down together with the Torah (Written Law). Ironically, while Orthodox Jews would not consider abortion murder according to the Law, less orthodox Jews might.

To answer your question, Orthodox Judaism does not consider abortion as murder; however, the issue is somewhat more complex than that, as the article above discusses.

 

[chosen_people]

Just to make this clear since you don’t spell it out. The vast majority of Jewish people do not consider a fetus a human until birth. At best a fetus is a partial life but until birth it is more like a finger than a person made in the likeness and image of God. That is why something like 93% of US Jews are okay with abortion in all or most cases.

The link between the genocide of the Holocausts does not make sense because they do not see ripping a fetus apart as murder, it is simply removing an unwanted part of the body. As long as one declares a fetus is subhuman then killing millions of them isn’t even a form of genocide, more like cosmetic surgery. To declare otherwise would make them (like too many others in the world) complicit in turning their backs on the destruction of millions of God’s children.

This thread is not about abortion per se and should not be derailed. I would also point out that as a guest of the forum I have no intention of getting into a detailed discussion on such a sensitive subject to Catholics. My statement referring to Catholic teachings and practices concerning abortion at times being antithetical to Judaism may be seen in the following two examples;

1. The case of Beatriz of El Salvador.
2. The Catholic practice (see ethical and religious directives for Catholic health care services) of removal of the entire fallopian tube to end an ectopic pregnancy, thus permanently and unnecessarily damaging a woman’s fertility.

 

[gracepoole]

My apologies for not responding sooner, jeannetherese. Alas, sometimes real life needs attention.

To me, it seems awfully dangerous to accept an “authoritarian” determination of truth from a state sponsored organization. Perhaps I am too skeptical of state power. Democracy is messy and slow and oftentimes rambunctious, but I wonder if encouraging people to they think for themselves might not be the preferable option to top down authority?

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding here. Those who see the Holocaust as a Jewish story do so because that’s what the historical record bears out. The “final solution” was a death order for all the Jews of Europe – not for all the Jehovah’s witnesses of Europe or all the dwarfs of Europe. While the Nazis certainly would have been pleased to eliminate these groups, as well, this was not the expressed, stated purpose of the genocide the Nazis commanded. To dismiss this reality is dangerous, I think, as it actually distorts history. And this distortion is one of the many possible results of approaching the historical record via a democratic approach.

Thank you for the reading recommendations. I read the blog piece and the speech by Mr. Reich but lacked time to get into the books. Both pieces advocated for a limited definition (Jewish specific) of holocaust as might be anticipated, given the thread topic, previous arguments and the choice of authors to present.
Mr Reich is Walter Reich, Yitzhak Rabin Memorial Professor of International Affairs, Ethics and Human Behavior at George Washington University (and has studied terrorism and Hamas and Rabbi Cooper is the Associate Dean of the Simon Weisenthal center. Reich acknowledged that in a democratic society there were bound to be varying approaches to both defining the term "holocaust"and discussing the subject; Mr. Cooper shared his concern over this fact. Each article was presented contestation over who gets to determine how the holocaust should be thought of and talked about.

Which of course, brings us back to the suggestion that the chief topic of debate in our thread is who gets to set the parameters of debate, who gets to define the terms, whether there is a particular way that history should be discussed, and who gets to make that determination. Do we accept a particular authoritarian source or accept that different sources will have different arguments and different forms of presentation, some of which may be quite disagreeable to us.?

Are you claiming that these sources are untrustworthy because they’re Jewish? Regardless, there isn’t *one *authority determining that the Holocaust is a Jewish story. Yad Vashem uses this kind of definition, yes – but as noted in the quote I included in an earlier post, so does the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. I’m not an expert in this area, to be sure, but I’ve been privileged to study at some of the finest international institutions and with some of the finest Holocaust scholars – Jews and non-Jews alike. And in this past decade of studying and teaching this subject, I’ve met no one who claims that the Holocaust was not the genocide of European Jewry. This doesn’t mean these folks have just eliminated discussion of other victim groups (they most definitely haven’t) or that they minimize these deaths (they most definitely don’t). But there are unique qualities of the Shoah, one of which is its position as (I’ll say again) the culmination of centuries’ worth of hatred and oppression.

Not at all. I’m using an analogy in the hope that is will help to illustrate the problem with the argument that, as the greater percentage of a people had a particular experience, they should be able to determine how that experience is presented.
I wonder if it might not be better to encourage multiple voices and trust that, as People study the different arguments, they will be able to formulate their own conclusions. The argument that one particular group should be able to dictate a conversations seems so…authoritarian.

Germans telling the story of the Holocaust vs. Jews telling the story of the Holocaust = perpetrators telling the story vs. victims telling the story. I don’t think this is the result you were hoping for by using the analogy you proposed. This isn’t a matter of a larger body count for Jews. It’s a matter of this.

 

[gracepoole]

The compulsion and the necessity to link the Catholic stand on abortion to the murder of one in every two Jews in Europe is more than unclear. This incongruity is further enhanced given that certain Catholic positions on abortion are antithetical to Judaism. . The Holocaust analogy to abortion encourages the further erosion and belittlement of the unique horror of the Holocaust. The Holocaust was the culmination of two thousand years of religious, cultural and racial anti-Semitism. The Nazis were not the originators of the idea that the Jews were subhuman, that they were like animals fit only for slaughter. The Nazis did not invent making Jews wear a yellow badge identifying them as Jews, they did not invent the concept of Jew free areas, or mass expulsion of Jews, or mass murder of Jews or mass theft of their property, or the placement of Jews in ghettos, or blood purity rules, or book burnings of Jewish books, or the total ostracizing of Jews from society, from places of work, of learning, of social interaction, or the boycott of Jews and Jewish businesses, or the denial to Jews of basic civil and legal rights. They did not invent the “big lie”'such as the blood libel, the desecration of the Eucharist, the Jews poisoning of wells, the Jews causing the plague. They did not invent the idea of the Jew as a malignant and detrimental force to society. Others did that for them.

So we should not be surprised to discover that the Holocaust wasn’t the first time that one half of the Jewish population of Europe was massacred. That occurred during the Crusades and was carried out by people who had joined the Crusades. Admittedly, the connection of butchering Jewish men, women and children for the crime of being Jewish and abortion is still unclear. However given the passage of time this similar analogy does not come to diminish the horror of the Holocaust. So instead of talking about abortion and the Holocaust I suggest something along the lines that abortion is “like being a Jew in Europe at the time of the Crusades”.

So, so well stated. :hug3: